All the theory, all the knowledge, all the heartbreak and drama... starts here.
In 2012, XJ Randall started a blog to enhance his association with nature and with God. What he didn't know is that his venture into the unknown was expected for a very, very long time.

Monday, April 22, 2013

More Thoughts: Ideas and Image Broadcasting

Sorry, I wrote kind of sloppy; I was trying to get the gist down as quickly as possible. Eh, just more thoughts on Image Broadcasting / Projection Theory. The bottom part hints at a real-world example. Most of this is common sense, just from my point of view...

How does a person know that they are making a difference...? How many people does one person affect...?

How does anyone know anything...? My previous thoughts on truth lead me to: 'truth is relational' (although we can argue that truth is constant). The truth I am talking about is the truth that we can verify through our senses and the ideas that are evoked via communication with one another. The type of idea I am talking about is the generic idea, but also is defined as a 'feeling' accompanied with a thought, a visualization or other replay of one's physical senses (in the mind).

I am lead to believe that we share similar characteristics between our truths because we (people) identify or judge similarity via the 'idea' that is evoked when communicating with other people. This lead me to realize that communication is basically one person evoking an idea within himself, or one person projecting a message of some sort designed to evoke an idea in another person, and if recognized by the other person, will have been evoked in them as well. If there are no similarities in both people's 'truths', then neither person will feel the same as the other. A person cannot evoke an idea in another person if they have never felt or realized that idea. This also lead me to realize that the evoking of ideas is a conditioning process, i.e. humans have to learn how to evoke the idea via conditioning, and if it is not learned then the idea will not be evoked when it is supposed to be stimulated.

We can take language as an example. If someone who only speaks Russian greets someone who only speaks Mandarin, the idea that was evoked in the Russian speaker will not be evoked in the Mandarin speaker (solely based on speech). Yet, we can say that both the greetings from Russian and Mandarin will generally evoke the same idea, it is just WHAT evokes them that is different for each person. Language is an example of something that needs the conditioning process to evoke ideas.

Now an interesting question we can pilfer from this is whether or not ideas can be evoked in nontraditional ways that are counter to regular communication, i.e. can we evoke the 'hello' idea in people who speak totally different languages without using speech or hand gestures, but some other method (such as the objects in the room). Basically, what we'd have to do is find out is what basic 'things', or identifiers, evoke the 'hello' idea and systematically put them in the same room or place as the person. This is a simple example that could be expounded upon.

So we know that ideas are moreover evoked via stimuli because we are conditioned to evoke them. The Image Broadcasting / Projection Theory basically says that people broadcast other people's motives through their behavior, so obviously ideas are evoked through behavior but a question that leads from this is whether image broadcasting / projection works from inanimate objects.

If the answer to this question is YES, then all things physical can carry and project motives (which seems sort of magical (not real), but it is interesting none-the-less). It is not short of propaganda and television, which, arguably, seem to evoke ideas in people even though they are 'inanimate'. However, I was thinking of some object even more inanimate than that, like a book.

If the answer is NO, then motives can only be carried by humans which leads to the revelation that the motive behind propaganda technique would be useless if there wasn't a complete network of human beings to carry the motive from the creator and pass it through the network.

Back on subject, so how do we know how many people we affect? An answer for this is, WE DON'T AFFECT ANYONE. If an 'affector' is everything within a person that can be used to create an idea that can be evoked then we carry the same affectors that have been around since the beginning of human life, meaning, a person can only evoke an idea from another person who has been conditioned, however, we all carry the potential to be conditioned. Nothing gets passed, physically, but it is sort of like a virus in that it can be passed via abstractly, but different in that we all have affectors: they are within us in dormant mode until we make an idea, or are conditioned to evoke one.

So, what I might be saying is, all human communication is just the evoking of ideas by people using stimuli that can be 'taken-in' through our five senses.

This is interesting because we can predict what people will do after evoking an idea in them, we can base our technology off of the ideas that are evoked in people, and we'll know what a person has experienced by getting all of the identifiers that are associated with certain ideas. On the technology end, we might be able to read user's thoughts, however that would be secondary to being able to tell what a user has experienced. Not only that, but, perhaps, based on image decay, we would be able to tell by a coefficient how many people the conditioned idea has gone through or even possibly how many people were present at the time the idea was conditioned or the image broadcast / projected.

How many people does one person affect...? How do we know they are making a difference...? Maybe soon we can try a network experiment for maybe 100 or more people in which we can test the theory out. The network will be dynamically drawn in a hierarchical / web diagram that will be interactive and we'll have each person behind a screen and in a different physical place...